similar to: IMQ & HTB

Hi Guys, Using the 2.6.test kernel? Alex and I have done some more tests and this is the patch incase ur using jdg-qos script http://www.digriz.org.uk/jdg-qos-script/index.html#qos-2.6 Thanks K _________________________________________________________________ Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx

Hello all, I have browsed archives and real all available HOWTOs, but I still have a few doubts. My set up is a router, as below. LAN(100MB)-------------(eth1)Linux-Router(eth0)---------------WAN(2MB/512) My aim is to cotrol both uplink and downlink bandwidth. For uplink control, I will use HTB on WAN interface. For downlink, I plan to attach HTB on LAN interface(both egress/outgoing). No

Hi, got a 25/25Mbit connection which is quite stuffed. So I applied htb rules. Uplink: class htb 1:1 root rate 24500Kbit ceil 24500Kbit burst 4661b/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b cburst 4661b/8 mpu 0b overhead 0b level 7 Sent 430600689269 bytes 730147320 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) rate 23057Kbit 5520pps backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 lended: 199673949 borrowed: 0 giants: 0 tokens: -964

Hi, i am running imq + htb on my router , the situation is like this eth0 = uplink to my provider eth1 = 1st customer eth2 = 2nd customer eth3 = 3th customer eth0 has limit 512 and i want to share this between eth1 eth2 and eth3 , but not working , this is the script i used, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ #!/bin/sh

Hi I''m looking for a quick recipe for a newbie to control http traffic in my linux gw. My internet is overloaded already and vpn external clients are experiencing troubles (disconnecting in peak hours). Any suggestions ? Regards Guillermo Caracas/Venezuela On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 14:40, lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl wrote: > Send LARTC mailing list submissions to >

Hello Thilo, What did you find superior with CBQ-wondershaper over HTB-wondershaper? We have not been using wondershaper specifically but our simple tests so far seem to show that htb is much easier to configure for a given target shape (i.,e accurate) compared to CBQ. Torsten -----Original Message----- From: Thilo Schulz [mailto:arny@ats.s.bawue.de] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:55 AM To:

Todays quick question: Ive had problems with imq and getting my setup to work as planned. Im thinking that a better solution for shaping incoming traffic would be to put a little limit in the outer interface of the router box with ingress, and the shape traffic on the inner interface with htb. Would that be better than using imq? -- Patrick Petersen <lartc@schmakk.dk>

Hi, I''m really new to traffic shaping and try to implement the wshaper.htb script. I have a linux box that serves as vdr, mldonkey, samba, apache and mailserver (imap), connected to my LAN with 100mbit. I''m connected to the inet via adsl with a hardware router/firewall, got 384k downlink 64k uplink. When I have mldonkey running, imap (via Outlook) gets *very* slow (mails with

I have a setup where I have three NIC in a Debian box. I have eth1 conected to internet and eth0 NAT''ed to 192.168.1.1. eth1 and eth2 are bridged together, given ip 192.168.122.2. What I want to achieve is to perform traffic shaping on the bridge as well as prioritizing the traffic from eth0 very low. (This is from trental flat ...) However it seems that I am unable to perform thhe

I am successfully running ingress (IMQ) and egress (HTB) shaping on a bridge. Is there any way to combine and share the bandwidth between ingress and egress? Example: I have set up www service for egress at 128 KB and ingress at 256 KB. The shaping on them works fine separately. However, I want to create a single virtual pipe for www traffic and limit both ingress and egress combined to 256 KB.

I want to shape the incoming traffic ( download ) "but using only fwmark", i know there are other methods, but i want to use this one particularly... So, first i create DOWNLOAD and mark with 20 all the traffic with destination 10.0.0.3 ( eth1 ) incoming from my internet device ( eth0 ). #$IPTABLES -t mangle -N DOWNLOAD #$IPTABLES -t mangle -I PREROUTING -i eth0 -j DOWNLOAD

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I''ve just discovered that trying to pass traffic from multiple interfaces through the same imq is a Bad Thing(tm). A quick search of "HTB IMQ panic" showed me older posts on this list saying that it''s simply incorrect to pass such traffic through the same imq dev. I''m now back to square one on using the linux

Hello all, I am providing broadband service through DVB circuit. I have 4KB uplink and 32KB downlink. I want to share 32KB downlink bandwidth among 192.168.0.0/24 (20 users in this subnet i.e 192.168.0.2-192.168.0.22)subnet where each user will get 2KB to 6KB bandwidth. And from 4KB uplink bandwidth each users will get only 1KB to 2KB bandwidth.

Hello, I''ve just recently started to use IMQ and I got puzzled after seeing the imq usage example on the linuximq.net site: It was something like this: tc qdisc add dev imq0 handle 1: root htb default 1 tc class add dev imq0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 1mbit tc qdisc add dev imq0 parent 1:1 handle 10: htb default 5 tc class add dev imq0 parent 10: classid 10:1 htb rate 256kbit

Hi! I have configured traffic shaping with htb and imq but when i am downloading the latency for example on the Bnet class is very high ..... example: 65 kb/s download best latency: 56ms lateny on bnet class while downloading: 400 350 250 350 400 100 300 200 80 200 300 250 ..... To get informations about latency i am marking ping packets with iptables. I want to play during other users

hey guys i am regulating the traffic to & fro by my network through a linux gateway , its behaving strange. i regulated Downlink to 2Mbps & UPlLINK to 500Kbps. both perform well when those are done independent i.e. one at a time but when i do both from a client system ..the downlink however continues at 2mbps but the uplink falls down to 100kbps? is something wrong with my script or

Hi Guys, Here is a question that is probably of concern to many of us. I am under pressure to provide some solution for ingress traffic shaping. What my customer demands is to divide the downstream (ingress) of an ADSL lines to two classes of traffic - important traffic and non important downloads. He has a very reasonable requirement: he wants a guarantee of at least 1000kbps at all times for

I have been testing wondershaper 1.1a with htb. DOWNLINK=2304 UPLINK=1024 DEV=wlan0 No other changes have been made, except to comment out the 2 lines to allow the script to run. When I do a speed test from sites like www.toast.net/performance, I only get speeds equal to my UPLINK speed. I expected a speed closer to the DOWNLINK. Am I missing something here? TIA, -- -Wes Hegge Technical

hi there, this is my 1st message in the list. I would like to use this wondershaper.htb to limit the bandwith usage at home. My kernel config is: # QoS and/or fair queueing # CONFIG_NET_SCHED=y CONFIG_NET_SCH_CBQ=y CONFIG_NET_SCH_HTB=y CONFIG_NET_SCH_CSZ=y CONFIG_NET_SCH_HFSC=y CONFIG_NET_SCH_PRIO=y CONFIG_NET_SCH_RED=y CONFIG_NET_SCH_SFQ=y CONFIG_NET_SCH_TEQL=y CONFIG_NET_SCH_TBF=y

i am assigned a network to replace its "Windows server with ISA caching proxy" with another "debian linux with squid proxy" with both "linux" and "ISA" are completely differnet boxes. i am using linux 2.6 kernel since the linux server has SATA hard disks . the network has downlink with a penta@net DVB card for down-link ; then it''s connected